wdross wrote:
True to some degree. Accounting for the most common print sizes, the pixel count ends up similar but less than the Canon EOS-1DX. With the Olympus E-M1 mkII, the pixel count is very similar to the EOS-1DX for common print sizes. But then the cost goes up to ~$1700 new with a lens. The real difference comes in pixel size. From a noise point of view, noise differences develop at about ISO 6400 and continue to about a two stop difference in noise at higher ISOs. I don't know about the OP and most others, but most of my shooting occurs below ISO 6400 and is not much of a factor for me in camera selection.
True to some degree. Accounting for the most commo... (
show quote)
Very much agree, and especially that 6400 is about
where the tide turns noise-wise.
As someone who DOES row against the tide rather
often, I choose NOT to spend extra $$$ and carry
extra weight to reduce noise. Noise WILL be there,
reduced or not. So I DO let noise influence camera
choice. I avoid cameras with uglee noise in favor of
cameras with "more aesthetic" noise. This is about
the
quality of noise, NOT the quantity, and it turns
out that for QUALITY, format size has no influence.
I've got a "big" camera that makes less noise than
some of my smaller cameras. But it's a really uglee
noise so no amount of noise is acceptable from this
camera. I do have an older smaller camera that is
even worse ! But I also have a particular m4/3 that
never makes uglee noise, even tho its noise
level is
not especially low.
For those concerned about dealing with noise rather
than trying to banish it, usually those who MUST do
high ISO work, noise becomes a very tricky part of
choosing a camera. Reviewers and lab testers never
address the quality of noise. You absolutely MUST
use the cameras to see for yourself what their high
ISO
looks like. How it measures quantitatively tells
you nothing about
how it looks. It's a tedious job :-(
.